Support

Representation ID: 26208

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & West Suffolk CCG

Designing developments in such a way that encourages the use of more sustainable modes of transport to get to community infrastructure is welcome and will help in the NHS preventative aspirations being obtained.

Object

Representation ID: 26375

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Plan fails to provide a positive and effective mechanism to ensure the delivery of the HMA’s housing needs in full. It also relies on the delivery of housing from sites in high risk flood zones. IBC need to identify significantly more sites, which are realistically deliverable and viable. IBC must look outside the Borough’s boundary to enable the town’s housing need to be met and identify land that is more suitable for residential development. Gladman are promoting land east of Ipswich, within East Suffolk District, for the development of ‘Orwell Green Garden Village’ and land for a new settlement in Babergh District in a strategic location between Hadleigh and Ipswich.

Object

Representation ID: 26389

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Level of town centre retail development isn't required , land better used for new homes. Town centre housing has lower impact on traffic congestion and air quality than outskirt development. Opportunities to convert existing excess town centre retail into housing. This approach should be used instead of Humber Doucy Lane, which will exacerbate traffic congestion into town centre and along Valley/Rd/Colchester Rd. Ipswich Central supports increase in town centre homes. Will improve town centre and night-time economy, reduce traffic into the centre, facilitate modal shift and improve air quality. Parking Strategy over-estimates parking demand, brownfield parking land better for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 26425

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Persimmon Homes

Agent: Persimmon Homes

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A prescriptive approach in the interpretation of the policy would limit opportunities to respond to market forces, and possibly result in more situations such as Griffin Wharf (site reference IP200) were the viability of development is being questioned. Persimmon also endorse the statements made by the HBF

Object

Representation ID: 26444

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy CS2 – The Location and Nature of Development. The subtext to the policy sets out that the central urban focus to the location of development also reflects the sequential approach to site selection required by the NPPF (which encourages the use of previously developed land). However, Pigeon still seriously dispute the Council’s ability to deliver housing on many of the brownfield sites, which are discussed in further detail in the following section of this report.

Object

Representation ID: 26448

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Agent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy comments on the location of green infrastructure. It should be noted that KCL has additional land in the vicinity of the Humber Doucy Lane site allocation so it may be possible to locate these uses outside the site. Therefore, seek flexibility to policy wording to ensure the most appropriate option can be pursued. Limiting green infrastructure to the application site is overly restrictive at this stage and does not enable options to be fully explored. This approach is not effective and therefore does not comply with the tests of soundness. Recommend amendment to policy wording.

Object

Representation ID: 26450

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Agent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Before an assumption is made that later in the plan period, housing land supply opportunities in Ipswich Borough will be limited, a comprehensive regeneration and asset strategy needs to be undertaken to exhaust all other options. Through measures contained in the Local Transport Plan and the Suffolk County Council Transport Mitigation Strategy, it should be possible to rationalise / make better use of the amount of car parking required in Ipswich.We would have expected the parking strategy to have been produced before the assertion was made in paragraph 8.58 of limited housing land supply opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 26451

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Agent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although we generally support the Plan, it's policies and supporting text relating to the proposed allocation at Humber Doucy Lane, as currently drafted, it is neither justified nor effective as it should be specific about any infrastructure requirements that will influence timescales of delivery and should not make generic references to the site coming forward "as development draws to a conclusion at Ipswich Garden Suburb" without providing appropriate evidence and details. Recommend amendment to paragraph 8.55 wording.

Object

Representation ID: 26468

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Island Site is situated within the Waterfront area to which this policy applies. As noted at para 5.21, parts of the operational port are also within it. ABP notes the desire of IBC to secure high density development in the interests of maximising the use of previously developed land, subject to that not compromising heritage assets and the historic character of Ipswich. ABP’s vision for the site (agreed with the partners and the LEP) does not envisage ‘high density’ development as currently defined in Policy DM23. ABP request additional wording in the final paragraph of Policy CS2.

Object

Representation ID: 26514

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Level of town centre retail development isn't required , land better used for new homes. Town centre housing has lower impact on traffic congestion and air quality than outskirt development. Opportunities to convert existing excess town centre retail into housing. This approach should be used instead of Humber Doucy Lane, which will exacerbate traffic congestion into town centre and along Valley/Rd/Colchester Rd. Ipswich Central supports increase in town centre homes. Will improve town centre and night-time economy, reduce traffic into the centre, facilitate modal shift and improve air quality. Parking Strategy over-estimates parking demand, brownfield parking land better for housing.

Support

Representation ID: 26554

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Agent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Policy CS2 gives expression to the Council’s spatial strategy and its main principles are supported by the Company. In particular, the Company again notes the focus that is being placed upon the IP-One Area, where
high-density development will be the norm. The Company notes, and welcomes, the changes made to criterion h of the policy, which is now consistent with the guidance set out in the NPPF. Summary: Support

Object

Representation ID: 26623

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ipswich School

Agent: Mr Matt Clarke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to allocation of land at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane (ISPA4.1), under CS2(b), suggest alternative reference to allocation of land off Tuddenham Road, north of Millenium Cemetery (21.81ha, with capacity for 500 dwellings).
This is on the basis that land west of Tuddenham Road, north of Ipswich Millennium Cemetery would be more appropriate, better related to the Ipswich Garden Suburb development, and therefore more sustainable, by virtue of reducing the need for travel by private car, improving pedestrian and cycle access and enabling a more consolidated and comprehensive form of development.
See accompanying letter for details.

Object

Representation ID: 26647

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Silverton Aggregates Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support Policy CS2. Agree that town centre, Portman Quarter and Waterfront will receive the highest densities of development, including high-density housing developments, with medium density and locally focused facilities to be provided elsewhere in IP-One and within and around district centres, with lower density development elsewhere. Recognised that this approach will: maximise opportunities to re-use previously developed land within central Ipswich; ensure that new housing is provided close to local shops, facilities and transport nodes; and support the ongoing regeneration of central Ipswich and particularly of the Waterfront and town centre. Allocating Land north of Burrell Road would achieve this.

Object

Representation ID: 26655

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concerned that 'higher density homes' is a synonym for tall buildings/ flats. Appears to be confirmed in final paragraph of Policy. Inference that ‘high density’ could ‘compromise’ the historic character of Ipswich, by way of tall buildings affecting the setting of these assets, impacting on their significance. Consider this section on densities needs to be clarified, and ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ densities defined. Should also make clear that good design should not only respect the historic character of an area, but respond to it. High density does not need to take the form of flats, see‘Increasing Residential Density publication (2018).